Leppin Aaron L, Okamoto Janet M, Organick Paige W, Thota Anjali D, Barrera-Flores Francisco J, Wieland Mark L, McCoy Rozalina G, Bonacci Robert P, Montori Victor M
Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
Front Public Health. 2018 Nov 2;6:315. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00315. eCollection 2018.
Multisector collaboratives are increasingly popular strategies for improving population health. To be comprehensive, collaboratives must coordinate the activities of many organizations across a geographic region. Many policy-relevant models encourage creation and use of centralized hub organizations to do this work, yet there is little guidance on how to evaluate implementation of such hubs and track their network reach. We sought to demonstrate how social network analysis (SNA) could be used for this purpose. Through formative research, we defined and conceptualized key characteristics of a bridging hub network and identified a set of candidate measures(1) network membership, (2) network interaction, (3) role and reach of the bridging hub, and (4) network collaboration-to evaluate its implementation within a pre-determined geographic region of Southeast Minnesota, USA. We then developed and administered a survey to assess outcomes as part of a SNA. We commented on the feasibility and usefulness of the methods. The initial surveyed network consisted of 50 healthcare organizational sites and 50 community organizations representing sectors of public health, education, research, health promotion, social services, and long-term care and supports. Fifty-three of these organizations responded to the survey. The network's level of collaboration was "Cooperation" (level 2 of 5) and reported levels of collaboration varied by organization. Thirty-eight additional, unsurveyed organizations were identified as collaborators by respondents, pushing the theoretical network denominator up to 138 organizations. These additional organizations included grocery stores, ambulance services, and smaller, independent healthcare and community-based services focused on meeting the needs of underserved populations. The bridging hub organization had the highest betweenness centrality and was in good position to bridge healthcare and the community, although its organizational reach was estimated at only 51%. The SNA methods were feasible and useful for identifying opportunities and guiding implementation. Bridging hub organizations are not likely to link-or even be aware of-all relevant organizations in a geographic region at initial implementation. SNA may be a useful method for evaluating the value and reach of a bridging hub organization and guiding ongoing implementation efforts. http://ClinicalTrials.gov; #NCT03046498.
多部门合作是改善人群健康状况的越来越流行的策略。要做到全面,合作必须协调地理区域内众多组织的活动。许多与政策相关的模式鼓励创建和使用集中式枢纽组织来开展这项工作,但对于如何评估此类枢纽的实施情况并追踪其网络覆盖范围却几乎没有指导。我们试图展示如何将社会网络分析(SNA)用于此目的。通过形成性研究,我们定义并概念化了桥梁枢纽网络的关键特征,并确定了一组候选指标:(1)网络成员资格,(2)网络互动,(3)桥梁枢纽的角色和覆盖范围,以及(4)网络合作,以评估其在美国明尼苏达州东南部一个预先确定的地理区域内的实施情况。然后,我们开发并实施了一项调查,以评估作为社会网络分析一部分的结果。我们对这些方法的可行性和实用性进行了评论。最初调查的网络由50个医疗保健组织站点和50个社区组织组成,这些社区组织代表公共卫生、教育、研究、健康促进、社会服务以及长期护理和支持等部门。其中53个组织回复了调查。该网络的合作水平为“合作”(5级中的第2级),报告的合作水平因组织而异。受访者还确定了另外38个未接受调查的组织为合作者,从而使理论网络总数增加到138个组织。这些额外的组织包括杂货店、救护车服务机构,以及专注于满足服务不足人群需求的小型独立医疗保健和社区服务机构。桥梁枢纽组织具有最高的中介中心性,尽管其组织覆盖范围估计仅为51%,但它处于连接医疗保健和社区的有利位置。社会网络分析方法对于识别机会和指导实施是可行且有用的。在初始实施阶段,桥梁枢纽组织不太可能连接——甚至知晓——地理区域内所有相关组织。社会网络分析可能是评估桥梁枢纽组织的价值和覆盖范围以及指导持续实施工作的有用方法。http://ClinicalTrials.gov;#NCT03046498